Talk:Stregheria/Archive 01

I cut the following here for repair:


 * The history of Stregheria, in this sense referring to Italian witchcraft, began with the arrival of the Etruscans in Italy circa 1,900 BCE (roughly 4,000 years ago). The Etruscans refined the religious practices of the native Italians, which before were almost undoubtedly similar to the practices of central Europe's germanic fertility cults from which Druidry and Wicchecraeft both derived.  This is when Italian witchcraft first became differentiated from other regional forms of witchcraft, about 400 years prior to Druidry becoming a distinct religion.


 * At this point, Italian witchcraft was simply the folk magick being practiced in the shadow of the more ceremonial rituals of the Etruscan priesthood.

It makes several confident assertions of dubious validity:


 * Whence this date for the arrival of the Etruscans? Whence the assertion that they were outside arrivals, not autochthonous? (Both hypotheses have support; neither is certain.)
 * Whence this information on Etruscan refinements of native Italian religious practice?
 * Whence this assertion that native Italian religious practices were "undoubtedly" similar to central European religions? (Since the Germanic and Celtic languages and&mdash;to some extent&mdash;mythologies were both Indo-European, this would place Indo-Europeans in Italy before the arrival of the Etruscans, who were not Indo-European. I shouldn't need to explain why this is mistaken.)
 * For that matter: what little we know of Etruscan religion is largely filtered through Roman minds; is anything known of pre-Etruscan belief and practice, the "Italian witchcraft" and "folk magick" spoken of here? Mythologies borrow from other mythologies, true, and it's sometimes possible to tease out the different strands that form the whole (see for example Greek mythology). This takes extensive knowledge; what are the sources of this knowledge on Etruscan religion? Or is the whole thing pure fancy and speculation?

(A final note: Mythologies of an ancient origin are very common: everyone from ancient Romans to modern-day nationalists makes them. So do neo-pagans. No such claims should be taken at face value.) &mdash;E. Underwood 06:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good points, though I'd say more sensational than dubious on most accounts. Likely a lot of these assertions have grains of truth in them, but as with any religion Stregheria seems to have taken some liberties in describing its own history.  I'll tweak with it in the next couple of days and try to assemble something more mainstream (with references) and try to separate out the legendary "history" from what's actually known.  (I think the legendary history should remain, as it is important to understanding of the religion, but should not be so completely infused into the "actual" history as to appear presented as known fact.) --Corvun 13:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we're on the same page here. For what it's worth, this old version of the paragraph (11:41, 17 Nov 2004) is probably a better starting point. (I love the term "religious retconning"; too bad there's no article for it. :-)


 * As an example of religious retconning, Stregheria attempts to connect itself with the religion of the original Etruscans, and claims that its origins lie with the appearance of the Etruscans in Italy circa 1,900 BCE (roughly 4,000 years ago). Evidence of pre-Christian grimoires and books of charms and incantations are said by followers to date back as far as the year 30 BC.  However, even most adherents admit that Stregheria could not have existed in anything even remotely resembling its modern form until around 1350 CE.

Older Italian belief in witches could probably go under Strega, the Roman origins thereof under strix (mythology) (actually closer to a vampire than a witch), and the neo-pagan self-claims under this heading. &mdash;E. Underwood 17:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree it's a shame there's no article for "religious retconning", especially since it's such a widespread practice. Vodun's claim to be the "Old Religion" of Africa, Wicca's claim to be the "Old Religion" of Europe, or Christianity's claim that Adam & Eve were the first Christians (I've heard Pentacostals preach entire sermons about how Adam was given special knowledge of things to come, and that he knew of the coming of Jesus -- in this scheme, Judaism is seen as a corruption of Christianity, rather than its parent religion).  Sometimes it's as simple as claiming that religion Y is a direct descendant from ancient sources X and Z, X and Z are thousands of years old, therefore religion Y is thousands of years old.  Sometimes it involves a mythological history (like the Pagan Roman religion).  And sometimes it fuses both.  Strangely, though, Wicca seems to be the only religion to have (mostly) halted this practice, possibly because it has undergone the most attack for it.  Not that all of this is directly related to Stregheria, but it would make interesting fodder for an article. --Corvun 21:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

yes, Eusebius rewrote the history of Judaism to give Christianity a respectable antiquity, and before him the JEDP authors remade the history of Israelite religion according to their own views. Wiccan and other neo-pagan claims that, for example, every horned mythological figure in ancient religions represented a single Horned God, are just a more recent appearance of this phenomenon. A title like religious retcon would bring the Originality Police down like a pack of harpies, but some of this might go in an article on origin myths or mythic history or something similar. &mdash;E. Underwood 16:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I too agree for the most part and hope I'm on the same page - that Margaret Murray, for an example, was going way overboard and that what Wiccans claimed to be the "old religion" was a romanticized version of a set of various indiginous belief systems which once existed, and some of which existed in the "heath" fairly late (16-17th CE?). I don't think you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but as mentioned earlier I do believe there are half-truths going on. While I feel that co-opting say the Shiva from Mohenjo-Daro and claiming it to be Pan or Cernunnos can seem deceptive, they are all quite similar. Personally I attribute this more to a humanistic level, but I don't have the problem with the theory that they all represent one archetypal deity, even though I don't personally ascribe to that belief. My problem, if I understand you guys, is when a group claims this is because of some ancient "Atlantean society" or something and not, say, the PIEs, or plain human nature to notice and develop the same ideas of worship. Or just plain make up stuff - Like Buckland, PectiWicca and the elusive Aidan Breac. If anyone could prove that that existed I would love to know. Sorry for jumping in, and the summations of well known theories are just for my edification. What I would really like to know, is if it would be a fallacious to hypothesize that the practice of burying an upside down statue of Saint Joseph in your yard to help sell your house, might be a pre-Christian tradition transposed onto Roman Catholicism? To me it seemed straight out of the Golden Bough or even Wicca. Anyway, that's what originally brought me here, since the custom started in Italy, I wanted to know if anybody knew of a possible folk origin. ;-) Khirad 11:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Literary evidence
As an outside who came at this page through anarchist symbols specifically the black cat, I'd love to see more than the single literary citation, and a proper citations list at the end. Fifelfoo 10:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.
Is it just me, or does it seem to others also that this bit - "Although Jesus of Christ as told in God's Holy Word is the true Messiah and Son of God who will judge the living and the dead. He fulfilled over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) which no mere mortal could perform. He is Lord so repent and believe before you are judged. We are sinners in the hand of a righteous and holy God (Yahweh) and our only hope is Jesus Christ--"by grace we are saved, through faith, it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man boast"--God's Word" - jammed onto the "Jesus" subsection of the "Three Devils" section is the addition of a reader disgruntled with the assertions made in the left-in first content of that "Jesus" section?
 * It seemed like a disgruntled comment, so I removed it. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think that no fact can be proved
i think no fact can be proved on from where stregha came from, but is still a valid form of witchcraft, and if study proporlly it has good ways of practising, and dont understand why the rivality between gardenerians and stregha?

Adding disputed tag
A lot of this material seems to be some editor's POV. In regards to the two references cited, the material in this article doesn't correspond to Leland's Aradia and there is no entry in that Encyclopedia for "Stregheria".

Almost every section has some variation of "Adherents claim person x is wrong/dismissable.", without any citation from an actual adherent, or a reference to the person/group being criticized. This is a textbook use of weasel terms.

There is no "Lucifer" in Roman myth.

Malandanti is a neologism. Google shows its use primarily in Dungeons and Dragons fanfiction, and in a weird essay on Ginzburg's work.

I assume that a great deal of this material comes from Grimassi's books, with a large dose of "personal flavour", but with no citation it's difficult to be sure. Some of the odder terms (like "Triad Clans") do show up on |Raven Grimassi's webpage.

It would be great if someone who knew something about Italian witchcraft would clean up this article.


 * Vandalism noted and will be reverted. *Plonk* --Corvun 02:53, September 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what vandalism you're talking about (unless you mean the 'disputed' tag itself), as your edits didn't address any of the problems with the article. Please don't remove the disputed tag until material in this article is properly referenced.  Jkelly 00:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please cease this activity at once. You are obviously a troll attempting to disrupt Wikipedia with inflammatory edits, false information, and ludicrous comments (such as "implies that there is something about 'Aradia' that is closer to Voodoo or Santeria than to Romanticism or modern Neopaganism, which is just misleading"). Your attempts to weaken the credibility of Wikipedia (as if it needs your help) are not appreciated, and if they continue, you will be reported. If trolling and stirring up trouble is how you get your kicks, I suggest getting them somewhere else. --Corvun 21:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it really your position that this article, as it currently exists, contains enough undisputed factual material that adding a "disputed" tag is "vandalism"? I find that difficult to understand, but I won't replace it until I hear your response.  As a note to other editors, the above paragraph is a duplicate of one from a tangential discussion at Talk:Aradia (goddess) Jkelly 00:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you were an honest editor (which I'm still not convinced you are) with real issues you wanted to see addressed, or had questions to ask of the factuality of certain content, you'd have brought your issues to the talk page before making potentially offensive and inflammatory edits. You don't see me going to the Christianity page and tagging it, and changing all instances of the name Jesus to the fictional character, Jesus, just because I have serious doubts as to whether or not Jesus actually existed. Not only would doing so be trolling, but an abomination to basic human decency.

Regarding you specific objections:


 * In regards to the two references cited, the material in this article doesn't correspond to Leland's Aradia...
 * This is very clearly incorrent. Have you ever even read the Gospel?


 * ...and there is no entry in that Encyclopedia for "Stregheria".
 * Another blatant falsehood. I own a copy of the book.


 * Almost every section has some variation of "Adherents claim person x is wrong/dismissable.", without any citation from an actual adherent, or a reference to the person/group being criticized.
 * The only such statements made are in regards to traditional, Syncreto-Pagan Streghe rejecting that Raven Grimassi's Neopagan religion of same name is "real" Stregheria.


 * This is a textbook use of weasel terms.
 * No, it's a textbook example of not making broad, sweeping generalizations that do not apply to all Streghe, keeping in mind the fact that Stregheria is not divided into mutually recognized sects defined by variations in belief as the Christian religion is.


 * There is no "Lucifer" in Roman myth.
 * And the sky is not blue, nor the Earth a sphere. Actually, your statement is a half-truth.  Technically there is no Lucifer in any surviving Roman myth.  Lucifer is the Roman counterpart to the Greek Phosporos.  "Lucifer" was the name used to describe the Morning Star until it was discovered that both the Morning Star and the Evening Star (Venus, counterpart to Greek Aphrodite) were one in the same.  So while there are no surviving myths concerning Lucifer himself, he is still very much a Roman god.  You'll notice a great deal of care was taken in this respect to the wording of statements in regard to Lucifer.


 * Malandanti is a neologism. Google shows its use primarily in Dungeons and Dragons fanfiction, and in a weird essay on Ginzburg's work.
 * This looks like an out & out lie. If it isn't, try using a more reliable search engine.  Searching for just about anything on Google brings up thousands of versions of a small few pages, little if any of which has anything to do with what you're looking for.


 * A great deal of this material comes from Grimassi's books...
 * And this is the statement that convinced me beyond all reasonable doubt that your only reason for being here is trolling. Did you even read the article?  Have you actually read any of Raven Grimassi's books?

Maybe you aren't a troll, but how are we to think otherwise? You came in waging war on the page, making outlandish and ridiculous claims, and used these claims, laughable as they'd be if not so horribly sad to think someone actually believes this stuff, as an excuse to tag the page without even bothering to discuss your issues first. How can you honestly believe anyone is going to think you something other than a troll and a trouble maker, making such wild and illucid claims? After re-reading what you've written here on the talk page, I'm now more certain than ever before that you either (a) have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, or, more likely, (b) know very well the ridiculousness of your claims and are intentionally vandalizing pages like Aradia de Toscano and Aradia (goddess) in order to provoke a negative reaction out of people. --Corvun 11:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Corvun, I'm sorry that I haven't responded earlier. It's entirely my fault, your response below covered this edit in my watchlist, and I didn't think to check this page.  Shall we go over these points now?  I assert that a disputed tag, or perhaps a verify tag belongs on this article as exists now, and you clearly do not think so, so let's discuss the points of disagreement.


 * 1) Adding a disputed tag is not, to my mind, inherently "offensive".  Who is there to offend?  We don't own our edits here.  It clearly can be "inflammatory", however, as we have demonstrated.  Would you suggest that every unsourced article on Wikipedia should remain untagged as "disputed" until there has been extensive conversation about it?  I haven't encountered that position before.  I'd say that if Wikipedia's Jesus article is unsourced, it should be tagged as such.
 * 2) I read Leland's book a number of years ago, and a revisit is definitely in order.  I don't recall anything about the "Malandanti", "Fanarra", "Janarra" or "Tanarra" in it, but I may well be mistaken.  If the article were sourced, I would not have to rely on memory.  This actually brings me to a potentially constructive idea.  Do you know if Leland's Aradia is in the public domain?  If it is, it would make a good addition to WikiSource.
 * 3) Corvun, Lewis' Witchcraft today: an encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan traditions is searchable on Amazon.  Here's the link to the table of contents:Table of Contents.  Aradia has a reference, but neither Grimassi nor Stregheria do.
 * 4) So who are these "traditional, Syncreto-Pagan Streghe"?  Without any citations, how can anyone know if they actually exist or not?
 * 5) A Wikipedia article, if it is properly sourced, should be able to speak authoritatively.  I'm not understanding what you're getting at with the "mutually recognized sects" comment.  Let's aim for real quotes, and be able to reference "who said what, when".
 * 6) As I read your response, you are explicitly stating that there is no way to source the statement "Lucifer was a Roman God" ("no surviving myths").  One would need to show that the word "Lucifer" was used for a star, and that all stars were Gods.  The idea that there was a Roman God named "Lucifer" is a religious belief held by some people, and needs to be identified that way, which the article does not do.
 * 7) Link to Google search on Malandanti.  If this article were properly sourced, I wouldn't have to use such an unreliable search engine.  If the Malandanti appear in Leland, it should be easy to provide the reference.  If it's from Ginzburg, it should also be easy to cite.
 * 8) I haven't read anything by Grimassi, but I've certainly read this article.  Since I have read Leland and Ginzburg (although not recently, it is true), my statement "I asssume that a great deal of this material comes from Grimassi's books" seems reasonable to me.  Where else is this material coming from?
 * 9) I tagged the page at 12:05, Sept. 12, and posted my reasons on this Talk page at 12:51.  Do we need to argue about those 46 minutes?  We obviously started out on bad footing because I tagged the page.  I had no idea that it was going to result in a cross-several-pages disagreement between the two of us; nothing on Wikipedia had led me to expect such a reaction.  I think that the tagging was a reasonable thing to do when encountering a page with the problems I saw, and I believe that I explained my reasoning within an understandable amount of time.  I'm not replacing the tag at the moment, although I still hold that it should be there, now that I'm aware the presence of it is such a source of strife.  Instead, I am hoping that the two of us can come to some agreement about how to move forward.  Jkelly 06:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Luciferean Satanism?
I'm not sure what Luciferean Satanism is supposed to refer to. Like the Temple of Set, The Process Church of The Final Judgment, or even LaVeyan Satanism? In any case, Roman and Biblical questions aside in regards to this topic, I corrected the Lucifereanism link (sp. error). Khirad 11:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking:


 * LaVeyan Satanism is a form of spiritual humanism. Luciferean Satanism is the actual worship of Satan.  Lucifereanism is a Pagan religion that honors all malicious deities and "trixters" as manifestations of their god. --Corvun 11:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

plagiarism and neo-pagan pseudohistory
First, most of this article is from Raven Grimassi's pseudohistory. Why must the author of this supposed encyclopedic entry pollute the internet with this nonsense? Second, some of the research and keyphrases have been "borrowed", to put it politely, from a piece I personally wrote at MysticWicks. (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=67577) I know there is no way of stopping internet plagiarism, but I write this because I was shocked to find this. Please read the original article, and you will see how the author of the "article" here has used textual manipulation to support the agenda of the tired, long-debunked Witch-Cult garbage. If anyone has the authority to remove the above article, please do so.


 * Thank you for your baseless accusations, insane ramblings, and trolling. I doubt anyone here has ever even seen that "piece" you wrote, and none of this article is derived from anything written by Raven Grimassi except where explicitly stated, nor has anything on this page been "debunked".  Please seek psychiatric help immediately.  --Corvun 20:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Corvun, please modify your tone. I have, in great detail above, expressed my own concerns about this article.  That said, having examined the thread that anon referenced, it's not clear to me what research has been "borrowed".  Anon, if you would point out more specifically what you feel to be a violation of your intellectual property, we can work on resolving the issue.  Wikipedia is absolutely concerned with avoiding plagiarism and with copyright issues, but I, at least, need some help finding it here.  Jkelly 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To Jkelly, it's alright. I've decided it's not worth getting frustrated over. (Though I would like to know the origin of the 1566 publication date. It took me a lot of digging to find that out, and if it has already been published I'd like to know where I can find it.) I think I could probably serve this community better by showing why writings of certain Neo-Pagan authors are completely unreliable when it comes to historical articles.

It is, I think, poor scholarship to use the writings of Raven Grimassi to provide supporting evidence for Charles Leland's Aradia, since much of the former is obviously aimed at validating the latter. That being said, perhaps I should be more specific in my objections, which, I hope will go unedited. No one I reference here comes without a source:

"...none of this article is derived from anything written by Raven Grimassi except where explicitly stated..." Thanks for the response. But I think just saying it doesn't make it so. If anything, the article reminds me of those once ardent supporters of Raven Grimassi, Fabrisia for instance (http://www.fabrisia.com/), who after the realization that something just isn't right, then go about creating academic-type thesis papers without the prerequisite tools. Just general notions, hunches and the occasional survivalist theory. For instance the phrase [witchcraft was] "practiced in the approximate geographical area of modern Italy from the first moment that it was distinguishable from Proto-Indo-European (or Pre-Indo-European) paganism" is completely unproveable.

"However, even today many secular internet translation services, such as babelfish, will translate 'stregheria' as 'witchcraft'." As a point of order, I just went to babelfish and the application could not translate it. Perhaps there is a specific link?

"Thusly, 'Stregheria', being the Italian word for Witchcraft..." I have before me Nuovo Dizionario Italiano-Latino from the Società Editrice Dante Alighieri (1959) which lists the word "stregheria" as "ant.", i.e. - antiquated. As well as the rather large Inglese-Italiano from Sansoni Editore (1988) which doesn't list it at all. Perhaps the original article can be edited to emphasize the point that it is describing the Neo-Pagan religion invented by Raven Grimassi, lest a person witness the glazed look of confusion on your average native Italian's face should that person mention "stregheria." I've made that mistake personally. (However, I have found a few Italian Wiccan web sites which are currently trying to revive this old word.)

The reference to "paganorum dea" comes directly from the Canon Episcopi, a false religious decree repeated by clerics, very often verbatim, for centuries. It is understandable that some people, lacking any knowledge of Latin, can mistake these quotations from the Canon Episcopi as evidence of an underground "witch-cult." I'm not stating that the original poster did this, but within some Neo-Pagan circles, the reliance upon secondary sources has taken the Canon out of its context and we can see its after-effects in that original post.

"Both works were in most respects unremarkable, and like others of Rategno's time included the usual descriptions of the Witches' Sabbat, pacts with Satan or Lucifer (whom Christians regard as one in the same), and worship of Diana." Neither Tractatus de Strigibus nor De Strigiis in Lucerna Inquisitorum refer to "Lucifer" per se. "Satan" appears only once, on page 155, and that is a quote of the Canon Episcopi. Rategno even references it by name, "Cap.Episcopi.dicit tales personas sceleratas retro post Satanam conversas..." Cornell University's online witchcraft library (http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/witch/docviewer?did=017) has both of these works by Bernardo Rategno which can be searched. As the article implies that Satan or Lucifer is mentioned in the aforementioned books, this leads me to believe that there are bad sources being invoked. As for Diana, including both of Rategno's works, there are only 4 references to Diana and 3 to Herodias. All are recitations of the Canon Episcopi or in discussing the Canon Episcopi.

"Supposedly, the Triad Clans are the followers of Aradia referenced by Bernardo Rategno da Como, thus filling the same historical niche as the Malandanti." This is according to who? Bernardo Rategno never mentions Aradia, or followers of such a character. Also, the "malandanti" - illusory evil-doers who appeared in the dreams of Inquisition victims as uncovered by Carlo Ginzburg, had absolutely nothing to do with Leland's Aradia, Bernardo Rategno's two works mentioned above or Raven Grimassi's "Triad Clans." Although such confusion is also understandable as Raven Grimassi has repeatedly referenced Ginzburg, Leland and Rategno within the same paragraph, thereby creating the illusion of causation.

"Baseless" is quoting a source, which itself, quotes no sources. Accordingly, as some good people have had the courage to question the validity of the claims presented in the original article, and as that article depends upon accepting Raven Grimassi's pseudohistory at face value, I feel it important to give some examples of why Raven Grimassi can not be used as an academic source. I'll give two examples. One of textual manipulation, the other plagiarism:

1)

Textual manipulation is the act of quoting part of a source in order to validate a thesis while ignoring another part of the source which would refute that same thesis. Raven Grimassi is notorious for committing textual manipulation, especially upon the works of Carlo Ginzburg.

Carlo Ginzburg wrote on page 71 of his Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath:

"'At the beginning of 1500, having examined the trial records preserved in the archives of the Inquisition in Como, the Inquisitor Bernardo Rategno concluded, in his Tractatus de Strigibus, that the witches' sect had begun to expand rapidly 150 years before.'"

Raven Grimassi wrote on page 15 of his Italian Witchcraft: The Old Religion in Southern Europe:

"'A.D. 1508: Italian Inquisitor Bernardo Rategno wrote in his Tractatus de Strigibus that a rapid expansion of the Witch Cult had begun 150 years earlier. He concluded this from his study of trial transcripts from the Archives of the Inquisition at Como, Italy.'"

In addition to Raven Grimassi's slapdash rewording, the date which Grimassi references, 1508, does not appear in the body of Ginzburg's text but rather in the notes. The note from Ginzburg's Ecstasies, p.83, states "The Tractatus, written around 1508..." So it is clear Raven Grimassi has read Ginzburg's notes, which we need to keep in mind because in the very next sentence in Ginzburg states, "According to Norman Cohn the chronology suggested by Rategno is not confirmed by other documents, Italian or French..." So the expansion of this "witches' sect" (which Ginzburg also disproves) does NOT fit "squarely within the lifetime of Aradia de Toscano," which the original poster claimed (and which Raven Grimassi has successfully convinced others of). But more importantly we can see how Raven Grimassi has quoted one part of Ginzburg's research (the "witches' sect"), which just so happens to support his thesis, yet ignored another part of Ginzburg's research (namely, the inaccurate chronology), which refutes his thesis. There are dozens of examples of Grimassi committing textual manipulation, but I think the point is made.

2)

The second example I give as to why Raven Grimassi can not be used as an academic source is stone cold plagiarism.

On page 144 of Italian-American Folklore (1992), Frances Malpezzi and William Clements presented a nursery rhyme in the Piedmont dialect:

"Maizina'd bo, maizina'd vaca chi la mal a slu grata. Maizina'd vaca, maizina'd bo, chi lal mal, le tut so."

Seven years later Raven Grimassi plagiarized this nursery rhyme, word for word, on page 58 of his Hereditary Witchcraft: Secrets of the Old Religion. If that weren't bad enough he relabeled it a "Sicilian Witch Prayer":

"Maizina'd bo, maizina'd vaca chi la mal a slu grata. Maizina'd vaca, maizina'd bo, chi la mal, le tut so."

As you can tell, Grimassi merely reformatted it, and possibly corrected a typo on the last line. (Although this could have also been the result of copy and pasting the second line into the fourth, which I personally think is more likely.) It always saddens me how little a grasp of the Italian language Grimassi's readers possess that they can't tell the difference between the Piedmont dialect (of northern Italy) and the Sicilian language. (They are very different, btw.)

If this project is meant to provide reliable information, which I heard it is, then the original article which relies on Raven Grimassi's pseudohistory should go. Or at least it should be made clear, throughout the article, that it is Neo-Pagan pseudohistory which is being described. There is nothing wrong with that, I'm a Neo-Pagan myself, but lacking such disclaimers does a disservice to anyone who is in search of the facts. As UCLA Professor Sabina Magliocco, a Gardnerian Wiccan herself, pointed out in The Pomegranate magazine (issue #13, Summer 2000), Neo-Pagan revisionist pseudohistory such as Raven Grimassi's commits "cultural violence" to practitioners of traditional Italian witchcraft, because it distorts the way those practitioners view themselves, thereby painting over their culture and values with those of another. This more than anything is why I feel the original article should be removed entirely, if the appropriate changes cannot be made.

To the author of "Adding disputed tag". There is, in fact, only one web site to date in the English language which analyzes the works of Charles Leland and Raven Grimassi without trying to validate them. The Stregoneria Italiana Project (http://www.stregoneriaitaliana.com/). It also serves as a forum for practitioners of traditional Italian witchcraft and as a support group for Raven Grimassi's ex-cult members.

Here is my recommendation for the word "stregheria":

1) An antiquated word for "witchcraft" in the Tuscan dialect of the Italian language. The modern word is "stregoneria." 2) A religion invented by a Neo-Pagan author writing under the pseudonym of Raven Grimassi. (Then if deemed necessary... Inspired by blah blah blah.)

I've found an easy way to delve into the second definition without conflict is to always refer to it as "Neo-Pagan Stregheria."


 * Anon, I appreciate the thought and time that went into the above, and I look forward to further discussion. I'd like to strongly encourage you to set up an account here at Wikipedia (and sign your contributions to Talk pages).  I assume that you are the same anon as the one who began this section, but it's easier for everyone to follow a username rather than a few IP addresses.  See the welcome tag I left you at the Talk page of your first IP.  Jkelly 22:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Complete Horseshit
Okay, I found this page a year or so ago and noticed that it was nothing more than a stub. I figured I'd write out an article, get all of the important stuff in there, provide the references, and turn it into an exhaustive treatment of Stregheria, both past and present. I left Wikipedia for over six months at one point because of all the horseshit going on on this page; between fluff-bunny Ravenites trying to turn an article on Stregheria into Grimassi's version of the religion (which traditional Streghe mock and scoff at), and the wannabe-skeptic Huttonites wantingto label it as a Neopagan religion (which it is NOT) so they could "debunk" it right alongside all of the other contemporay European Pagan religions they attack, slander, and defame by interpreting facts with an obvious agenda and coming to some pretty far-stretched conclusions that don't match the facts (the long-winded anonymous user who recently joined us is attempting to do exactly that), this article became too exhausting to handle. Only when I returned six months later and saw what these two parties had done to the page in my absence did I feel I had a responsibility to try and keep this page as accurate and NPOV as possible, and curb the introduction of ridiculous claims made by the fluff bunnies and the Huttonites that weakened the integrity of the page. So I reverted months of vandalism and insane edits and figured I'd start anew. But now the same old garbage is showing up; Huttonites trying to "debunk" Stregheria and its proud, centuries-long history (not to mention making straw-man attacks by quoting out of context and then arguing against such quotes as though they had an entirely different context; essentially arguing against things that were never said, as well as making some blatantly false statements), trying to label it as "Neopaganism" (which, again, it is NOT), and all-around just trying to make war on an ancient spirituality by making it look like something other than what it really is. This is sickening in the extreme. As I've so far been the only major contributor, I'm saving this page to my local hard drive and will be reducing the article back to the stub I found it as. That way I can put the work into it that needs to be done (proper citation, etc.) without having to worry about Huttonites, following in the tradition of Hutton himself, tossing garbage at Stregheria and the Neopagan religions it influenced just for the sake of "debunking" any religion that challenges their preconceptions. All I have to say is that you people should be ashamed of yourselves for (a) believing all this baseless garbage you've been spewing, and (b) trying to use this garbage with liberal doses of half-truths and unsupportable skeptic extremism to attack a people's religion. What you're doing isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's unethical and immoral in the extreme; an affront to the very concept of integrity, intellectual or otherwise. --Corvun 09:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Corvun, since anon 209.74.53.150 hasn't responded in a few days, I was wondering if we can discuss moving forward with this article. How would you feel about commenting out all of the "To be written" sections in accordance with WP:STYLE?  That doesn't really address any of my concerns (except insofar as some of the words I questioned won't be visible to the public), and it would be easier to scan the article for discussing future edits.  Any thoughts? Jkelly 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies folks. I had a little trouble joining and spent a full day reading the Introduction pages.
 * I have been studying Italian-American spirituality for some time now and have interviewed many practitioners of Neo-Pagan Stregheria. I could write what I believe to be an informative article on the Stregheria movement, but it would be completely different than what has been presented so far.
 * The one thing I'm not clear on is... if a member comes across an article which s/he feels is in need of major work if they should overwrite what they have found or simply make recommendations in the talk pages. Solitario 19:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply at User talk:Solitario. Jkelly 21:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to comment out the "to be written" pieces now. Jkelly 03:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)